DE WITT CLINTON. THIS energetic statesman and political economist was born in the Province of New York, on the second day of March, 1769. He was educated for the bar, under the tuition of Samuel Jones, but, before he had made any considerable progress in practice, was appointed private secretary to Governor George Clinton, his uncle. From this time he ecame identified with the politics of the State, mingled in the discussions of the day, and soon distinguished himself by the power and pungency of his occasional writings. In the protracted controversy that arose during the period prior to and at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, Mr. Clinton took a prominent part. He opposed the arguments of Jay, Hamilton, and Madison, in a series of papers, over the signature of A Countryman, which, although failing to answer the triumphant exposition of The Federalist, “carried conviction to a large proportion of the voters of the State of New York." During the session of the Federal Convention of his native State, he was present and reported the debates. "His letters at this time," says Professor Renwick, "show him to have been in principle an anti-federalist. Mature reflection in after days changed his views on this subject; and his official letter to the mayor of Philadelphia, on the occasion of the death of Hamilton, shows how completely satisfied he had then become of the wisdom which directed the framers of the constitution.* Mr. Clinton also opposed the treaty of Mr. Jay, and the foreign policy of the General Government. In 1794 he turned his attention to military affairs, was elected lieutenant, and subsequently captain of a company of volunteers, that had been formed anticipating an open rupture with England or France, both of which nations were committing constant depredations upon American commerce. About the same time he occupied the post of secretary to the Regents of the University, and also to the harbor commissioners. The election of John Jay to the governorship of New York, in 1795, deprived Mr. Clinton of his several official stations, and he immediately returned to the profession of the law, but for a short period only. In 1797 he was a member of the legislature, and the following year took his seat in the State Senate. Here he occupied a leading place, originated and perfected many important measures, and displayed the most comprehensive views of governmental policy. He supported President Adams in the defence of the honor of the nation against the aggressions of France, lent a helping hand towards the abolition of slavery, and in other great questions exhibited extraordinary diplomatic skill and legal force. In 1801 he entered the Senate of the United States, where he met in debate, and as an opponent, the powerful orator and statesman, Gouverneur Morris. The most important question that came before the Senate during his career, was that of the navigation of the Mississippi. The debate was a violent and protracted one, in which he and Mr. Morris took part. How well Mr. Clinton sustained himself, can best be judged from his speech, which is embraced in the present collection, as is, also, that of his eloquent and more experienced opponent. Mr. Clinton remained in the Senate two years; but brief as his career was, he rendered services Life of De Witt Clinton by James Renwick, LL. D. His inferior to none of his associates, either in number or consequence. At the close of his senatorial term he returned to New York, and in 1803 was appointed mayor of that city. mayoralty, by the just, fearless and unbiased character of his judicial decisions, and the constant activity he manifested to promote the welfare of the city, won the highest applause and confidence of the people. In 1812, opposing the war with Great Britain, he consented to become the candidate of the peace party for the presidency, in opposition to Mr. Madison. The character of that political contest, which terminated in Mr. Clinton's defeat, is too familiar for particular notice in this place. Mr. Clinton's mayoralty terminated in 1815. He had occupied that important post since his first election in 1803, with the exception of two terms, and at the same time, for many years, held a seat in the State Senate. In the administration of his senatorial duties he was, in a high degree, distinguished for activity and statesmanlike capacity. Among his earliest acts was the advocacy of the system of free schools, the establishment of benevolent institutions for the sick, aged and indigent of his fellow-men, the tolerance of Roman Catholics, the defence of the New York harbor, besides many other measures calculated for the improvement, elevation, and general welfare of the people. In 1811 he was elected lieutenant-governor, and presided, with great dignity and credit, over the Senate, of which he had so long been a member. He retired from public life in 1815. His attention was now turned to the subject of the Erie Canal, the plan of which had been projected in 1809, but delayed in consequence of the war with Great Britain. Mr. Clinton, associated with Gouverneur Morris, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon De Witt, and others, was appointed, in 1809, a commissioner to examine and report the most feasible route for the great improvement. In 1816 their report was made, and, principally through the instrumentality of Mr. Clinton, an act was passed "to provide for the improvement of the internal navigation of the State." A new board of commissioners, of which Mr. Clinton was a member, was appointed, and immediately entered upon their duties. The next year plans and estimates of the work were laid before the legislature, and a law was passed, authorizing the canal, the cost of which was estimated at over five millions of dollars. The limits of this sketch will not allow of a particular recital of Mr. Clinton's services in this gigantic undertaking. A short time after the passage of the canal bill, Mr. Clinton was elected governor of his native State, and continued in the gubernatorial chair until 1822, when he declined a re-election. As chief magistrate he displayed the energy and ability that characterized his former public career. He was strenuously devoted to the cause of internal improvement, to the extension of the benefits of education to all classes and conditions of men, and to other plans of reform, among which that for the inspection of wheat is not the least important. His speeches to the legislature not only evince the highest order of literary ability, but exhibit the soundest principles and the purest patriotism. After spending three years in retirement, he was again elected governor, and about the same time (1826), President Adams tendered him the mission to Great Britain. He declined the mission, preferring to remain in the service of his State. Mr. Clinton's connection with the literary, scientific and historical institutions of the United States was extensive, and in each he manifested an active interest. "The documentary history of his life," says Tuckerman, in his admirable sketch, "bears ample evidence of his varied learning, his large discourse of reason, his broad views, and his unwearied activity. It comprises orations before philosophical and benevolent societies, speeches, reports, letters, journals, and messages to the legislature. It attests facility as a writer, versatile knowledge, and earnest The office of mayor was at that time held by a commission from the Executive of the State, exercised under the construction of the constitution by the council of appointment. It was of much greater importance than it has possessed of late years. The mayor presided in the meetings of the Common Council, not yet divided into two chambers, and in this body he had a vote and a deliberative voice. A great number of valuable offices were in his direct gift; he was also the chief judge of the common pleas and of the criminal court, as well as the actual head of the city police. He was also c officio chairman of the board to which, with almost absolute power, the care of the public health was intrusted.—Renwick, + See the Life of Harrison Gray Otis, in the preceding pages of this volume. ness of purpose, embracing discussions of questions of policy, data for the naturalist and historian, and systematic digests of studies in almost every department of scientific, literary, and political inquiry. Much of the significance of these papers is, however, lost, through the progress of events and the diffusion of knowledge. Orators have multiplied since his day, and many able legislators have won reputation in the same fields; yet these incidental writings are valuable for reference, and interesting as the literary exposition of a noble character. The Address before the Philosophical Society, the Discourse on the Iroquois, and the Letters of Hibernicus, are valuable illustrations of the habits of research, the intellectual tastes, the powers of observation, and the impressive style, of a man whose life was mainly occupied with executive duties, and whose fame is eminently that of a practical statesman. It is delightful to cite, after the lapse of fifty years, his eloquent defence of literature and science as elements of a wise policy, to hear him glory in the memories of Hunter and Burnett, the educated provincial governors of his native State, advocate the need of a knowledge of the past, in order to reap the fruits of the present, and designate the advantages, both natural and civil, offered in this country to the votary of science and letters. It is equally pleasing to follow his ethnological investigations of the savage tribe that once possessed the fair domain around him, and to share the patriotic zest with which he examines its soil, forests, and waters, to fix the nomenclature of their varied products. He anticipated, by hints of projects such as De Foe's famous essay bequeathed to posterity, many of the subsequent victories of practical science, when he declared that "here the hand of art will change the face of the universe, and the prejudices of country will vanish before the talisman of merit;" that "it will not be debated whether hills shall be perforated, but whether the Alps and the Andes shall be levelled; not whether sterile fields shall be fertilized, but whether the deserts of Africa shall feel the power of cultivation; not whether rivers shall be joined, but whether the Caspian shall see the Mediterranean, and the waves of the Pacific shall lave the Atlantic shores."* During the summer of 1827, Mr. Clinton made a tour of the New England States, where he met with the heartiest welcome from the inhabitants, who honored him not only for the position he held as governor of the State of New York, but on account of his eminent, long-continued, and successful public services. Near the close of the same year, while residing at Albany, New York, he was seized with a disorder, so slight in its early stages, as to cause no anxiety, but which terminated his life, on the eleventh of February, 1828. His death produced the deepest sorrow among all classes of his fellow-citizens. and his memory continues to be cherished with growing esteem and respect. NAVIGATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI. The following speech on the resolutions of Mr. Ross, relative to the navigation of the Mississippi river, was delivered by Mr. Clinton, in the Senate of the United States, on the twenty-third of February, 1803:† MR. PRESIDENT,-The extraordinary manner in which the subject, now under consideration, has been introduced; the extraordinary manner in which it has been treated, and the extraordinary nature of the proposition itself, would justify a latitude and severity of remark, which, Essays, Biographical and Critical; or, Studies of Cha racter, by Henry T. Tuckerman. See the speech of Gouverneur Morris, and note at page 475, ante. however, I am not disposed to indulge upon this occasion. I know that I address myself to dom and patriotism of my country: I will, a very respectable portion of the collected wistherefore, leave the honorable members from Pennsylvania and Delaware, Mr. Ross and Mr. White, in the undisturbed possession of their inflammatory appeals and declamatory effusions, and will manifest a becoming respect for the high authority to which I have the honor to speak, by moving on the ground of argument and of fact. To prevent losing myself in so spacious a field, I will consider the subject under three distinct heads: first, the injuries alleged to have been committed on the part of Spain; second, the nature, character, and tendency of the remedy proposed; third, its justice and policy. minister near the United States, would induce a belief that the act of the Intendant was unauthorized. On the other hand, it cannot readily be believed that this officer would assume such an immense responsibility, and encounter an event so big with important consequences, not only to his country, but to himself, without knowing explicitly the intentions of his govern The importance of a free navigation of the Mississippi has been duly appreciated by the government; and a constant eye has been kept upon it, in our negotiations with foreign powers. An attempt was, indeed, made, under the old confederation, to barter it away for twenty-five years, which, however, was efficiently controlled by the good sense and patriotism of the government. By the treaty of peace with Great Bri-ment. Such, then, is the true state of the tain, in 1783, by the treaty of amity, commerce Spanish aggression: an important right has and navigation with her, in 1794, and by the been secured to our citizens by the solemnity treaty of friendship, limits and navigation with of a treaty; this right has been withdrawn by Spain, in 1795, the right of a free navigation of an officer of the Spanish government, and the Mississippi is recognized, and declared to whether this aggression was directed by it or exist, from its source to the ocean, in the citi-not, is not as yet known. Other aggressions zens of the United States. By the twenty-have, indeed, been stated by the honorable second article of the treaty with Spain, it is declared, that "in consequence of the stipulations contained in the fourth article, his Catholic majesty will permit the citizens of the United States, for the space of three years from this time, to deposit their merchandise and effects in the port of New Orleans, and to export them from thence without paying any other duty than a fair price for the hire of the stores. And his majesty promises either to continue this permission, if he finds, during that time, that it is not prejudicial to the interests of Spain, or if he should not agree to continue it there, he will assign to them, on another part of the banks of the Mississippi, an equivalent establishment." The twenty-second article, granting the right of deposit, is, therefore, founded upon the fourth article recognizing the right of free navigation, and is intended to give full and complete efficacy to it. By a proclamation of the Intendant of the province of Louisiana, dated the 16th of October last, the right of deposit is prohibited. The reason assigned for this daring interdiction is, that the three years, for which it was granted, having expired, it cannot be continued without an express order from the king of Spain. And, at the same time, no equivalent establishment is assigned according to the stipulations of the treaty. There can be no doubt but that the suspension of the right of deposit at New Orleans, and the assignment of another place equally convenient, ought to have been contemporaneous and concurrent; that the conduct of the Intendant is an atrocious infraction of the treaty, and that it aims a deadly blow at the prosperity of the western States; but it is extremely questionable whether it was authorized by the government of Spain or not. On this subject I am free to declare, that I entertain great doubts, which can only be cleared up by the course of events, or perhaps it will ever be enveloped in darkness. On the one hand, the terms of the proclamation, indicating a misunderstanding of the treaty, the remonstrances of the governor of the province, whose authority does not extend to commercial and fiscal affairs, over which the Intendant has an exclusive control, and the prompt and decided assurances of the Spanish gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Ross, in House, on the resurrection of that ardent zeal in favor of their oppressed countrymen, which has so long and so soundly slept over British and French enormities. As to the nature, character and tendency of the remedy proposed, there can be but one opinion. It proposes to enter the country of a foreign nation, with a hostile force, and to seize a part of its territory. It is not preceded by a formal declaration, and cannot, therefore, come under the denomination of a solemn war; but it partakes of the character of a war not solemn. It answers to the definition of war, by Burlamaqui, "a nation taking up arms with a view to decide a quarrel;" to that given by Vattel, who represents it to be, "that state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force." A state of general hostilities would as necessarily follow, as an effect would follow a cause: no nation would submit to the irruption of a hostile army, without repelling it by force: the proud Castilian, as described by the gentleman from Delaware, would revolt at the insult; the door of negotiation would be effectually closed, and as the appeal would be to arms, in the first instance, so the controversy must be finally decided by the preponderance of force. It would, therefore, not only have impressed me with a more favorable opinion of the honorable mover's candor, but also of his decision and energy as a statesman, if he had spoken out boldly, and declared his real object. War is unquestionably his design-his wish. Why then mask his propositions? Why then combine it with considerations connected with negotiation? Why not furnish the American people, at once, with the real and the whole project of himself and his friends? If it is bottomed on patriotism, and dictated by wisdom, it need not shrink from the touch of investigation; it will receive their approving voice, and be supported by all their force. The resolution is, then, to be considered as a war resolution; in no other light can it be viewed; in no other light ought it to be viewed; and in no other light will it be viewed by the intelligence of the country. In this point of view, I will proceed to consider its justice and policy, its conformity with the law and usage of nations, and the substantial interests of this country. I shall not attempt to occupy your attention by threadbare declamation upon the evils of war, by painting the calamities it inflicts upon the happiness of individuals, and the prosperity of nations. This terrible scourge of mankind, worse than the famine or pestilence, ought not to be resorted to, until every reasonable expedient has been adopted to avert it. When aggressions have been committed by the sovereign or representatives of the will of a nation, negotiation ought, in all cases, to be first tried, unless the rights of self-defence demand a contrary course. This is the practice of nations, and is enjoined by the unerring monitor which the God of nature has planted in every human bosom. What right have the rulers of nations | to unsheathe the sword of destruction, and to let loose the demon of desolation upon mankind, whenever caprice or pride, ambition or avarice, shall prescribe? And are there no fixed laws, founded in the nature of things, which ordain bounds to the fell spirit of revenge, the mad fury of domination, and the insatiable thirst of cupidity? Mankind have, not only in their individual character, but in their collective capacity as nations, recognized and avowed, in their opinions and actions, a system of laws calculated to produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number. And it may be safely asserted, that it is a fundamental article of this code, that a nation ought not to go to war, until it is evident that the injury committed is highly detri mental, and that it emanated from the will of the nation, charged with the aggression, either by an express authorization in the first instance, or by a recognition of it, when called upon for redress, and a refusal in both cases to give it. A demand of satisfaction ought to precede an appeal to arms, even when the injury is manifestly the act of the sovereign; and when it is the act of a private individual, it is not imputable to its nation, until its government is called upon to explain and redress, and refuses; because the evils of war are too heavy and serious to be incurred, without the most urgent necessity; because remonstrance and negotiation have often recalled an offending nation to a sense of justice, and a performance of right; because nations, like individuals, have their paroxysms of passion, and when reflection and reason resume their dominion, will extend that redress to the olive-branch, which their pride will not permit them to grant to the sword; because a nation is a moral person, and as such, is not chargeable with an offence committed by others, or where its will has not been consulted; the unauthorized conduct of individuals being never considered a just ground of hostility, until their sovereign refuses that reparation for which his right of controlling their actions, and of punishing their misconduct, necessarily renders him responsible. These opinions are sanctioned by the most approved elementary writers on the laws of nations. I shall quote the sentiments of some of them. Vattel says: "Two things, therefore, are necessary to render it (an offensive war) just. First, a right to be asserted; that is, that a demand made on another nation be important and well grounded: second, that this reasonable demand cannot be obtained otherwise than by force of arms. Necessity alone warrants the use of force. It is a dangerous and terrible resource. Nature, the common parent of mankind, allows of it only in extremity, and when all others fail. It is doing wrong to a nation to make use of violence against it, before we know whether it be disposed to do us justice, or to refuse it. Those, who, without trying pacific measures, on the least motive run to arms, sufficiently show that justificative reasons, in their mouths, are only pretences; they eagerly seize |